Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE CHAIRMAN, SAN JOSE PARISH HOSPITAL versus THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE)

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE CHAIRMAN, SAN JOSE PARISH HOSPITAL v. THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE) - WP(C) No. 17275 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 14228 (26 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17275 of 2007(F)

1. THE CHAIRMAN, SAN JOSE PARISH HOSPITAL
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE),
... Respondent

2. PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :26/07/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 17275 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 26th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this court seeking to quash Exts.P13, P14 and P15 which are assessment orders and demand notice purporting to claim building tax. A direction is also sought to respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed further in the matter pending disposal of the application for exemption from payment of property tax made by 1st and 2nd respondents vide Ext.P7 resolution before the Government. There is a further prayer to consider the request of the petitioner for exemption from payment of building tax and declare that Exts.P13, P14 and P15 are illegal. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is the Chairman of a trust which is running a hospital in the second respondent-Panchayat from 1949 onwards. It is stated to be a charitable institution providing free medical service to the poor and needy without any discrimination as to WPC No.17275/07 2 caste or creed. It is running a nursing school and hostel recognised by the Government, it is stated. According to the petitioner, petitioner was called upon to file a return by Ext.P1 to which petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply. He was again served with Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 seeking information regarding the use of new building. Petitioner immediately sent Exts.P5 and P6 reply, it is stated. The second respondent took up the request of the petitioner for exemption from property tax and resolved to refer the petitioner's application to the Government (Ext.P7). Petitioner was issued with Ext.P9 notice from the first respondent intimating fixation of tax in respect of the building at Rs. 1,92,620/- and calling upon him to file objections. Petitioner sent letter. Ext.P11 resolution is taken to defer the decision on tax till the Government took a decision on the request for exemption. Petitioner submitted Ext.P12 letter requesting to stop arbitrary proceedings. Thereafter petitioner received order of assessment and demand notices as Exts. P13, P14 and P15. Petitioner preferred Ext.P16 objection requesting the first respondent not to proceed further in the matter. This came to be met with Ext.P17 rejection.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent- Panchayat besides the learned Government Pleader. WPC No.17275/07 3 Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is pending consideration before the Government and till the Government decides the matter on the question of exemption, respondents may not proceed further in the matter.

3. Of course, the question arose under the Municipality Act relating to exemption from tax as provided in Section 235 of the Municipality Act 1994. A Division Bench of this court has categorically held that hospital run by charitable trust is not entitled to exemption. The writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and take a decision on the request of the petitioner seeking exemption in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the second respondent-Panchayat within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time as a decision is taken, proceedings pursuant to the impugned order/notices shall be kept in abeyance.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sv. WPC No.17275/07 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.